camber/caster adjustment [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

zracre

05-01-2006, 02:23 PM

Ok I just want to be sure...I purchased some ball joints for my 92 Integra. I thought they would be just stock replacements, but to my surprise, they are eccentric adjustable (Moog). There is no way to otherwise adjust camber on the Honda as the slotted upper a arm is not legal (I got shot down in fastrack :bash_1_: )...are these legal or are we stuck with stock alignment specs? Thanks for the help/input in advance...

Andy Bettencourt

05-01-2006, 10:33 PM

I can't find anywhere an allowance for adjustable ball joints.

orlando_wrx

05-02-2006, 08:13 AM

2. On other forms of suspension, camber adjustment
may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric
bushings.

8. No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension
component or mounting point is permitted.

zracre

05-02-2006, 08:34 AM

2. On other forms of suspension, camber adjustment
may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric
bushings.

8. No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension
component or mounting point is permitted.
[/b]

It seems right but i sent in a clarification to SCCA to get the wording right anyways...

Andy Bettencourt

05-02-2006, 08:46 AM

Are you saying non OEM-equivilant ball joints are legal? Please expand on this thinking.

zracre

05-02-2006, 08:57 AM

It is a moog "crash" part. It goes in the stock unmodified upper control arm ball joint mount. It is a stock equivalent replacement ball joint available at Napa/Autozone etc...

Andy Bettencourt

05-02-2006, 09:11 AM

It is a moog "crash" part. It goes in the stock unmodified upper control arm ball joint mount. It is a stock equivalent replacement ball joint available at Napa/Autozone etc... [/b]

I would say legal if and only if the FSM calls it out as a 'crash part' by part number. It is NOT a stock equivilant part as it performs a different function...it may 'replace' the OEM ball joint but it performs a different function.

"manufacturer."</span></span>] </div>

R2 Racing

05-02-2006, 11:52 AM

A topic like this came up back in October, I believe. As the rules are currently written, using a piece like that would be illegal. (See exerpts already quoted.) It really is a dumb rule, IMO. If the MacPherson strut cars can use camber plates, why can't an upper and lower A-arm car use an adjustable ball joint? Currently, the only way one of these cars can adjust camber is to use eccentric bushings in the anchor bolts of the upper arms. These pieces are more expensive than an adjustable ball joint, harder to install, and are harder to adjust. On top of that, as the upper arm moves up and down, the location of the bolt in the bushing moves around, effectively changing your camber settings as your suspension travels. Yes, I know that camber changes with suspension travel no matter how you look at it, but it doesn't need to due to suspension location points moving around in their bushings. Especially not if other suspension types have rules in place to be able to get around it.

Personally, I do not use any type of camber adjuster on my Integra because my only options are a major pain in the ass (the front) or they just aren't legally available at all (the rear). I tried using the eccentric bushings in the front but eventually removed them because they kept pissing me off.

Andy, I am interested to know why an adjustable ball joint for camber correction on an upper and lower A-arm suspension hasn't been considered for making legal. Is it because it hasn't previously been asked for or because there's something else I'm missing? I know that some older rules were put in place in order to prevent people from gaining an advantage through items that were very expensive at the time. Then later as time went one and these parts became more readily available, the rule was changed to allow them (see threaded shock bodies). Is this the case here? I ask because honestly, an adjustable ball joint is cheaper, easier to adjust, easier to install, more consistent, and provides no additional performance advantage over an eccentric bushing. Any insight you could give would be appreciated.

zracre

05-02-2006, 11:58 AM

and they are only $55~$75!! I looked into the eccentrics for the upper ca but it seems rediculous. I tried to get the slotted one (exact same thing as camber plate!) and got shot down...starting to feel like a club that hates Hondas....

Andy Bettencourt

05-02-2006, 12:02 PM

Kev,

I don't know how to answer your question. I think the MPS guys would gladly trade their struts/lack of camber curve/camber plates for a limited adjustable double wishbone set-up. More allowances for DW stuff would make the division of haves and have-not's greater...at some point we all have to accept the strengths and weeknesses of the cars we have chosen instead of asking for modifications to the rules to make things easier - or better. It's creep at it's core.

As far as the rear of your car...

plate.[/i]</div>
</span></span>

starting to feel like a club that hates Hondas.... [/b]

HA! I think a wide variety of drivers of non-Mazda's and non-Honda's would laugh you outta the bar!!!

Seems as if the Miata's are in the same boat.

zracre

05-02-2006, 12:25 PM

Hey I have no problem with the weight issues and performance adjustments...Im SURE you dont either Mr Miata...I like seeing other cars contending AND I race a Miata as well. If there is a way to INEXPENSIVELY do something that was not available before of course I am going to submit it. Fact is as long as we pick cars that are competitive to race It seems like we will be bashed for trying. My request is a simple cheap fix for camber that has no other benefit other than being cheap and easier to acquire/adjust...now isnt that in the spirit of the rules?? Or should we just force people to spend silly money to try and develop cars for our hobby?. I am not biased to Mazdas or any other cars I just think some things need to be done for the better of our class...it is not just hondas. I raced a 240Z for years. Loved it. I raced a Rabbit GTI for years. Loved it. I race a Mazda and a Honda now and I love them...why is it so damn hard to get simple stuff like this addressed? And why is it met with this kind of resistance. I am not trying to get a Jackson Racing supercharger on my 1.6 Miata because it cant keep up at Daytona...its a simple "crash" part...geez!

lateapex911

05-02-2006, 12:36 PM

It would amount to a post classification rule change as well, which is a bad thing in general.

To illustrate that, lets make up a scenario.

Car A has a suspension like your Acura, and is very popular. As such offset ball joints are available.
Car B has the smae basic setup, but isn't as commonly found on the streets, but IS a very popular race car. But you can not, at any price, buy an offset ball joint.

As a rulemaker, would you allow Car A an advantage over Car B? Would that be fair? It would save the Car A guys some money, but the Car B guys are now in the position of having to go out and custom fabricate the same part at huge expense if they want to remain equal. Thats not making racing cheaper.

Finally, the rule quotes above equates the "eccentric bushing" allowance to this ball joint question. Is a ball joint a bushing?

(Ducking for cover, LOL)

zracre

05-02-2006, 12:39 PM

I never claimed it was a bushing...so car A cant have its ball joint...why can car b have a camber plate allowance?? camber plates were not availabe from the factory...and you are relocating the suspension...if anything they are not within the spirit of the rules

Knestis

05-02-2006, 04:42 PM

Why can't I change the location of my bits to provide the kind of camber gain and roll center control offered by some other suspension designs? It's about creep and if I weren't deeply commited to not losing sleep over it, I'd make an effort to explain why it's a bad thing.

For those in the audience who don't recognize creep when they see it or appreciate why it's a problem AND have an open mind on the subject, revisit some old strands hereabouts. For those who want to put their competitive advantage ahead of the bigger issue - and I don't blame you ONE little bit anymore - write your proposals, pitch your best case, and be careful what you wish for.

K

R2 Racing

05-02-2006, 05:33 PM

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but wouldn't the allowance for an adjustable upper ball joint not give the cars who can use them any additional performance advantage at all? Is there a current way for double A-arm suspension types to adjust camber? Yes, there is. This suggestion is just an easier and cheaper way of creating a condition (or adjustability) that is already perfectly legal. I don't understand how that would be rules creep at all. I can see the point that some cars may not have them available for their cars, but that doesn't mean that they will be absolutely, 100% guaranteed to be loosing anything on track to cars that do. In the end, both cars can still adjust camber, it's just a bigger pain in the ass to do in one of them. Now, I know that someone's going to complain about even that. "Why should one car be allowed to have easier camber adjustment than the other?" Well, because the MacPherson strut cars already do....and then we're back to the beginning of the argument.

I'm also not going to buy the arguement that the MacPherson strut cars are hindered in suspension design verses a double A-arm car so they deserve something extra. BMW's seem to do just fine with them. Nissan SE-R/NX2000's, not so much. But I imagine I could also find a car classified with a double A-arm suspension that's not as fast as the Honda's too. You cannot honestly say that 100% of the time, one design is better than the other. Besides, if that were true, does that mean we're now in the business of giving certain models a little something extra because they have one type of a suspension verse another? Wow, talk about "rules creep".

Now the arguement of changing suspension locating points. Well, isn't that what an eccentric bushing does? If not, than how is it changing camber at all if that's the case? If it's not changing a suspension locating point, than camber would never change. Now if you don't buy that and answer it with a "Well, that's a bushing in a existing joint that fixes two suspension locating pieces together, so technically you're not moving the locating point." Ok, well than what does a ball joint do? Isn't it also a joint that fixes two suspension locating pieces together? So does that make it a bushing too?

Andy, I see what you highlighted for the rear of my car. I agree that this is the only way to adjust the camber in the rear. I already knew that it was legal for me to do some slotting, but I worried about weakening them. I didn't realize that I could then additionally reinforce them if I decided to slot though. I will have to look into the posibility of doing this. It'll be a minor pain to do the modification, but adjustability would be pretty easy. Thanks.

dickita15

05-02-2006, 05:44 PM

A statement and a question

First, Kevin, I believe that I have read here in the past that the type of suspension that a car has is considered in the process and one of the adders/subtractors in the classification process along with other small things such a tranny ratios, weight distribution and such. I think most people would agree that the typical Honda double A arm is better for racing that the average strut setup.

Second and this is a honest question. Can you achieve adequate camber settings with eccentric bushing or would you like more. In other words are the adjustable ball joints really just a cheap and easy way of doing the same thing or are there more gains to be made by allowing them

lateapex911

05-02-2006, 05:56 PM

I never claimed it was a bushing...so car A cant have its ball joint...why can car b have a camber plate allowance?? camber plates were not availabe from the factory...and you are relocating the suspension...if anything they are not within the spirit of the rules
[/b]

I wasn't there at the begining of IT time, but i will hazard a guess that slotted plates et al were allowed for McP strut cars because of the very unfavorable responses that design gives in racing conditions as an attempt to equalize them with other arguably superior types of designs.

It IS something that is considered when the car is initially classed, and making any changes now is a post classification change.

And the "Not availble from the factory" arguement is at best a red herring. Were Hoosier tires? Any bushing material? (Which is also used to relocate suspensions, and has been since the begining of IT time, even when using the "pure" reading of the word material to restrict materials to Delrin, etc). How about hollow sway bars? And well, there are tons of things the factory didn't put on the car that we run daily.

And any rejection of this request has NOTHING to do with hating Hondas.If that were the case, would Hondas hold so many records and win so many events? The ITAC looks at things from a big picture view, and isn't concerned with the manufacturer.

In short, every car has its plusses and minuses.....but I'd have to say that the Integra is not short on plusses, and deals with it's minuses very well.

joeg

05-02-2006, 06:09 PM

oops here they go again with bushings...

lateapex911

05-02-2006, 06:12 PM

Also, Evan, you maybe missed my point about car A AND car B having the same suspension design......but that car B can't get the el cheapo moog offset ball joint. If car A gets them legally, Car B now HAS to get them...or go backwards....which means custom fabbing.

Not to mention the double camber amount now available when using both methods for car A...which, even if it's not needed, is a bad allowance.

I think this is a classic unintended (bad) consequences situation and clearly rules creep.

zracre

05-02-2006, 07:20 PM

oh well i guess they will just stay in the box for now...I just got back from the dealer buying new upper control arms/ball joints...not available separately...

R2 Racing

05-02-2006, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by dickita15+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dickita15)</div>

First, Kevin, I believe that I have read here in the past that the type of suspension that a car has is considered in the process and one of the adders/subtractors in the classification process along with other small things such a tranny ratios, weight distribution and such. I think most people would agree that the typical Honda double A arm is better for racing that the average strut setup.[/b]
I don't know if things like that are considered; Andy would know better. I also agree that the Honda double A-arms work quite well. But that was not my point. My point was that good examples and bad examples of handleing can be found in many different types of suspension designs. I just don't believe it's fair to categorize that one type will 100% of the time perform better than another design. That was my only point, that's all.

Originally posted by dickita15@
Second and this is a honest question. Can you achieve adequate camber settings with eccentric bushing or would you like more. In other words are the adjustable ball joints really just a cheap and easy way of doing the same thing or are there more gains to be made by allowing them

I don't believe so. I know for my Integra you can buy eccentric bushings that will range anywhere from -1.5 to +3.5 from factory settings. Lowering my car to its current height naturally gave the car about -2 in the front. So figure upon lowering, eccentric bushings should give up to -3.5 in the front. I'd have a hard time believing that you'd ever need that much, let alone more. As for the adjustable ball joints, I have no idea what their range is. They are not currently legal, so I never fealt the need to look into them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lateapex911)</div>
And any rejection of this request has NOTHING to do with hating Hondas. If that were the case, would Hondas hold so many records and win so many events? The ITAC looks at things from a big picture view, and isn't concerned with the manufacturer.[/b]
Again, agreed.

Originally posted by lateapex911@
In short, every car has its plusses and minuses.....but I'd have to say that the Integra is not short on plusses, and deals with it's minuses very well.
I still think that we're missing the point in this respect. I don't understand why this conversation comes back to the competitiveness of the cars it may or may not affect. We're not talking about giving double A-arm cars anything that they do not already have. Can they already adjust camber? Yes. Is the range of the adjustment they can currently obtain more than enough? Well, I can only speak for the Integra and IMHO, yes, it is. So how is this dealing at all with pluses and minuses in respect to on track ability? Nothing additional is being asked for that will do anything for on track performance than is already available. All that is being asked for is an easier, cheaper way of doing it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lateapex911)</div>
Not to mention the double camber amount now available when using both methods for car A...which, even if it's not needed, is a bad allowance.[/b]
As I said above, at least for the Integra, more than enough negative camber the car would ever need can already be achieved through eccentric bushings. It's not a matter of performance, but a matter of ease and cost.

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911
I think this is a classic unintended (bad) consequences situation and clearly rules creep.
Could you elaborate more on this, please? Maybe I am missing your points as I'm just not seeing it. Thanks, Jake.

Andy Bettencourt

05-02-2006, 10:09 PM

...I just got back from the dealer buying new upper control arms/ball joints...not available separately... [/b]

Same deal with the Miata.

lateapex911

05-03-2006, 02:17 AM

Kevin, my comments about the acura having strong "plusses" wasn't meant to imply that it doesn't 'deserve' this item because it does well on the track. Rather I was just saying that some cars have different mixes, and while the process takes a lot into account, sometimes there is synergy between the parts that makes one car out perform others. Math can only go so far, LOL.

Well, to elaborate, the unintended consequence comes into play when the allowance is made and it doesn't affect all cars equally. Clearly, we can't make a line item for the Teg alone. It would have to be for all cars. And while it might work fine for the Teg, the Banshee XL guys who have a similar suspension, have a problem. Their car had a stupid name, and though it was a cool car to race, it sold like stale sardines on the showroom floor. Therefor Moog doesn't make the part like they do for you guys. So now we have a situation where you can get , (Just for the sake of arguement) 2.75 degrees of possible camber, but he can only get 1.25 without the offset ball joint. Well, guess what? He now HAS to go have some made up. And it costs lots of money. THAT is, in my eyes, and unintended consequence.

The rules creep plays in when a new rule is allowed that in effect makes everybody do yet another thing.

It might work fine on the Teg. I hear what you're saying...that it won't "give you" anything..that you might not need to use all of the available camber possible (between the current allowance and the new ball joint)....but other cars will, and that ends up being a new "must do" mod.

If you look at lots of categories, you can see how they get so far from the original starting point. It seems like a good idea at the time, but soon, the entire category has shifted. We hear that about Prod ALL the time, and some make comments about IT in the same way.

Of course, some rule creep is inevitable, as technology changes, the category must change with it. But the changes must be made carefully, with a great long term vision, and they must affect all cars as equally as possible.

Greg Amy

05-03-2006, 12:45 PM

...and it continues...

:happy204:

orlando_wrx

05-03-2006, 01:16 PM

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but wouldn't the allowance for an adjustable upper ball joint not give the cars who can use them any additional performance advantage at all? Is there a current way for double A-arm suspension types to adjust camber? Yes, there is. This suggestion is just an easier and cheaper way of creating a condition (or adjustability) that is already perfectly legal. I don't understand how that would be rules creep at all. I can see the point that some cars may not have them available for their cars, but that doesn't mean that they will be absolutely, 100% guaranteed to be loosing anything on track to cars that do. In the end, both cars can still adjust camber, it's just a bigger pain in the ass to do in one of them.... [/b]

In theory it would allow for a slight perfomance increase. By allowing camber adjustment up top you are tilting the suspnsion assembly inward to gain negative camber, by using adjustable ball joints (i'm assuming at the bottom of the hub) you gain negative camber by pushing the wheel outward. If the ball joints were allowed, a tricky racer would the use both available methods and push his wheel outward as far as possible and then fine tune camber with the A-arm, effectively increasing track width without the added unsprung weight of a wheel spacer.

Just playing devils advocate though, cause I wouldn't bitch and complain if you used them. Hell, I'm not even expecting to be even close to competitive for a long time, so my only real concern is getting myself faster, rather than slowing other people down. But the creep does have to be fended off... :cavallo:

zracre

05-03-2006, 02:20 PM

Nope...ball joint is the upper...no advantage there...it has the same effect. It would be real easy to simply word it camber adjustment can be made with eccentric bushings OR one (1) eccentric ball joint attached in the stock location to an unmodified stock control arm.

Matt Rowe

05-03-2006, 07:36 PM

Hmmm, one eccentric ball joint . . . so I could use one with a different installed height that (further) changes the geometry. Maybe it eliminates a ride height issue or bump steer problem or so on. This is starting to sound like the .040 over piston rules in that we could spend months and several rule wording changes trying to come up with rule that would allow a ball joint to change camber in a normal range and nothing else. That's definitely and addendum to the definition of rules creep. :D

zracre

05-04-2006, 08:05 AM

Ha!! It does not change anything but what it was designed for...the camber and slight caster adjustment...it does not change the geometry as much as offset bushings though...as on a Miata where you can raise and lower the attachment points of the suspension...a different installed height would be silly and would probably make you slower...it would be funny to see ya try though!!!

Andy Bettencourt

05-04-2006, 08:14 AM

But how does it/would it affect every other car in the ITCS?

Just because it's easier and cheaper for one doesn't make it better for all.

zracre

05-04-2006, 08:20 AM

it doesnt change anything!! if they make it for other cars (im sure they do) then they can use them too. Im sorry I even ran this by you guys. I am not one to try stuff that is questionable. It is a simple cheap way to change camber. I guess something like this is pretty drastic. Popping out a ball joint and installing an eccentric one ya know is alot more change than welding new strut towers on with hi tech slotted camber plates...good grief!

R2 Racing

05-04-2006, 09:17 AM

I've been thinking about it, and the bottom line is that the powers that be see that allowing this modification has the potential to create additional, unintended favorable conditions, further outcasting other models, and/or would make them hear rules creeping in the night. So despite my best efforts, this point of view hasn't changed and I think I can wave my white flag now. Thank you for the intellectually stimulating conversation though. I had often wondered why the camber adjustment option for a double a-arm front suspension was such a huge, inaccurate pain in the ass while other suspension types have very accurate, quite easy, and highly adjustable (for many different conditions) ways of doing it. Then the fact that the double a-arm cars have cheaper and easier options currently available for purchase, that performed the exact same function, made it even more confusing. But I guess now I know why, I think. I don't have to agree with it though.

Andy Bettencourt

05-04-2006, 10:30 AM

Guys, I hear you, believe me. Slotted camber plates are just as easy - or easier to install than new ball joints.

Tell me how you would write the new rule and then you will see. Are all ball joints 'free'? Are just uppers? Just lowers? What about cars with different configurations than a HondAcura? Try and take into account the unintended consequenses on OTHER cars - not just how it can help just one model and it's 'insignificance' and 'easy factor'.

My position is that I don't KNOW all the ways it would affect other cars and you would have to write a nice tight rule to make sure you didn't create grey as well as making it fair to all who are classed. This just isn't something that is NEEDED.

And I will say it again, If I had a strut-based car, I would GLADLY trade the suspension design to you for your 'hard to adjust', 'fully cambered' double wishbone setup. I have said a thousand times over the past year how I wish my Miata was as easy to do alignment mods to as the strut-equipped RX-7's...but I would never trade the design and effectiveness of the DW for struts.

AB

ShelbyRacer

05-04-2006, 10:45 AM

a different installed height would be silly and would probably make you slower...it would be funny to see ya try though!!!
[/b]

A "drop" ball joint in the lower arm places the A-arm at a lower point in the curve. This is especially a big deal when you have a car that the A-arms go below horizontal when the car is lowered. Extending the ball joint puts the A-arm back down where it belongs, or lower... The result is that when you compress the suspension, the arc of the ball-joint travel puts it further away from the centerline of the car, giving you camber gain under suspension compression (a benefit most double a-arm setups already enjoy).

Point here is- write the rule, send it in, and see what happens.

Be aware though, it doesn't always work like you wanted. A while back, my friend (a poster here) wrote in for a similar type of issue. On the car we like to race, no accessory pulleys we made, and custom would've cost a ton. There was of course, an alternate crank pulley available. He wrote in after spending a LOT of time crafting the wording so that the new rule wouldn't give unintended gains to other cars. In the end, it was "crank pulleys unrestricted" and no mention was made about the other wording involved. Not sure how many of the current ITAC guys were involved with that one, or if the complete wording was ever even given to the ITAC to discuss...

The point is, people here can shoot you down real easy, but you won't really know unless you take a moment and try. I think the rest of the guys here are just trying to get people to really truly look at all the different ways that people could bastardize a fine rule. Lord knows I wasn't a "rules nerd" until I came here and got beat on.

charrbq

05-04-2006, 01:22 PM

What Shelby Racer said...times two. No telling how many things have been made legal and illegal on this site and have little or no relation to what actually happens in the GCR.

lateapex911

05-04-2006, 03:33 PM

Well, just to clarify, or sum up my point, it's not about whether it will make life easier for one brand, (in this case the Acura), but whether such a change could make:

A- Any car change it's relative competiveness,

and

B- Whether any OTHER car could HAVE to perform the mod because A occured, and will wind up having to spend huge money needlessly.

zracre

05-04-2006, 04:57 PM

the ball joint in question is the upper...if it is available or could be made to work (minor fabrication) in another make model, it would most likely be a blessing. I started this thread for this purpose...to see what happens. I know many people run these already and wanted to see what would happen if it was called out. Not trying to rain on anybodys parade but if it is not legal or will never be, id like to know now before i go to the dark side B) , and to see what other options i may have. I have been running my car without any adjustment to the front camber (its pretty close as is) and wanted to tweak it. i found these parts at the local parts store and thought why not try? I will stay with the stock camber for now as I have heard that the upper eccentrics are a PITA to install and adjust...and it changes the whole geometry to boot...requiring more set up testing etc. Thanks guys for the good debate and well see what the board thinks...letter sent.

MMiskoe

05-05-2006, 12:40 PM

As a general response to "Creep", why is that no one brings up this comment when it comes to things like new cars being added to a class, cars being moved from one class to another, weights being changed, SIR's being implemented etc. I think the precedent has been set that creep is happening and will continue to happen if people want IT to stay current w/ what is available for hardware out there.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood but this complaining about creep has got to stop because change of rules has to happen for the class to survive. Notice there are no Renault powered spec racers in SCCA anymore.

I'll get off the soap box now.

Matt

Andy Bettencourt

05-05-2006, 01:49 PM

Because Matt, the classiication of cars and the re-classification of cars have nothing to do with the category-wide rule set. I would hardly call the classification of the Sentra SE-R Spec V for 2007 in ITS - "Creep".

Now if ITR goes through, I see that as 'eveolution' - still no rule changes, just the addition and adaptation to the current market and issues.

lateapex911

05-05-2006, 03:06 PM

As a general response to "Creep", why is that no one brings up this comment when it comes to things like new cars being added to a class, cars being moved from one class to another, weights being changed, SIR's being implemented etc. I think the precedent has been set that creep is happening and will continue to happen if people want IT to stay current w/ what is available for hardware out there.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood but this complaining about creep has got to stop because change of rules has to happen for the class to survive. Notice there are no Renault powered spec racers in SCCA anymore.

I'll get off the soap box now.

Matt
[/b]

Matt, I think you are confusing the term.

"Creep" is when a rule change is made, that either requires the entire category to go out and buy, fab, or pay someone else to do something to the car, just to stay in the game . (Lets ignore the inevitable safety items). A great example of creep would be to allow alternate cyl heads. Now EVERYTODY has too to go out and source one, just to keep up. Thats bad. But what if YOUR car has no better alternative? Now it's up to you to develop one. Thats worse.

But adding a class for faster cars, or adding cars to a class has to happen, as you point out. But......the new class won't affect anyone in the current classes, and adding a car, if it's done properly, shouldn't have an effect on the existing subscribers, except to provide another choice. If it's done right, nobody should have to run out and get the new "model of the month". That's a huge problem in SS and Stock Class in autoX....and there's little that can be done about it, because the Category doesn't set the weight in the initial clasification, like IT.

In short, "creep" affects everyone, but not always equally, and causes more work, or more expense. Sometimes it's unavoidable.

Nurturing the category is done in such a way as to try to keep the balance.

e36its

05-05-2006, 03:17 PM

"Creep" is when a rule change is made, that either requires the entire category to go out and buy, fab, or pay someone else to do something to the car, just to stay in the game.[/b]
Does it only count as creep if the entire category is forced to buy, fab, or pay someone else to do something to the car? How about just a subset? If, say, for example, just spitballing, hypothetically a particular marque were forced to buy a chunk of alumineeeeum, a new intake, and get tuning done... would that be creep?

tom

ShelbyRacer

05-05-2006, 03:28 PM

If, say, for example, just spitballing, hypothetically a particular marque were forced to buy a chunk of alumineeeeum, a new intake, and get tuning done... would that be creep?
[/b]

I might not consider it creep in and of itself, but the idea of bringing in a new technology that could be then used in a more sweeping manner would be...

I just pray that the ITAC guys are as smart as I think they are, and they keep that technology on a very short leash.

I do definitely feel for the e36 guys though.

orlando_wrx

05-05-2006, 03:52 PM

Does it only count as creep if the entire category is forced to buy, fab, or pay someone else to do something to the car? How about just a subset? If, say, for example, just spitballing, hypothetically a particular marque were forced to buy a chunk of alumineeeeum, a new intake, and get tuning done... would that be creep?

tom
[/b]

Here goes another SIR hijack... :happy204: :lol:

e36its

05-05-2006, 04:59 PM

Here goes another SIR hijack... :happy204: :lol:
[/b]
You're right, it's out of bounds. My apologies...

tom

lateapex911

05-05-2006, 07:08 PM

In short, "creep" affects everyone, but not always equally, and causes more work, or more expense. Sometimes it's unavoidable.

[/b]

yes. But lets not quote out of context, eh?

And we're taking unprecedented steps to fix that issue as well.

See the last point.